Limpopo Judge President Abused Power, Committee Finds

A Judicial Conduct Committee has found that Limpopo Judge President Moletje George Phatudi should face a tribunal for abusing his power.

• Limpopo Judge President Moletje George Phatudi abused his power, a Judicial Conduct Committee has found.
• He appeared to side with one of the parties in a royal dispute.
• He heard an interim application in the High Court without the other party present, even though the matter was scheduled to come before the Supreme Court of Appeal. He granted the interim application.
• He then appeared to block the other party from having a timely hearing.
• If a full panel Judicial Conduct Committee upholds retired Judge Chris Jafta’s ruling, then Phatudi will likely face a tribunal.
• He may eventually face impeachment.
• This is the first time a judge has been investigated for how they performed their judicial functions.
• It is the second disciplinary finding against Phatudi in months.

A damning ruling by retired Justice Chris Jafta has been made against Limpopo Judge President Moletje George Phatudi.

Jafta, heading up a Judicial Conduct Committee inquiry, ruled that Phatudi should face a tribunal for abusing his judicial power. The charge carries the possibility of impeachment.

The matter will now be referred to the Judicial Service Commission’s full five-member Judicial Conduct Committee. If they agree with Justice Jafta’s ruling, it will recommend that a tribunal be established to probe the allegations.

It will be the first case that investigates a judge for how they performed their judicial functions. Ordinarily, unhappy litigants are not open to complain against the judges who presided over their cases. But in this matter, Jafta wrote that Phatudi had inexplicably ignored several alarm bells when hearing a matter involving a succession dispute after the King of the Bapedi Nation died in 2021. Allegations that Phatudi was doing the bidding of those he was close to, were not “fanciful”.

The King’s brother, Morwamohube Thulare, claimed the throne after a royal family meeting. But his mother, Manyaku Thulare, convened her own meeting and was appointed acting Queen.

The dispute went to court.

Manyaku secured an interim order declaring her to be the acting Queen.

Morwamohube launched his own application and secured an order discharging the interim order and effectively confirming that he was the acting King.

Manyaku was aggrieved and was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

While this was pending, Jafta said, she then “bizarrely” approached the court again, in an urgent, ex parte (without notice to the other side) seeking to enforce the earlier ruling in her favour.

This was heard by Phatudi.

In his report, Jafta said there were glaring defects in the application, which nonetheless Phatudi had entertained. He had granted the relief she sought, with immediate effect, in the absence of the complainants and other parties.

“What happened thereafter was a comedy of errors committed by the High Court,” Jafta wrote.

The order had a return date of 18 March 2025.

Morwamohube attempted to pre-empt that date in January 2025. But it was inexplicably struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

On 18 March 2025, the court declined to hear the matter because it was not on the opposed roll. It was adjourned until September 2026.

In the meantime, Manyaku continued to exercise her powers as the acting Queen.

Morwamohube’s lawyers requested an earlier date from Phatudi but received no response.

In their complaint to the JSC, his lawyers said Phatudi must be held accountable for his role in “a miscarriage of justice and for bringing the judiciary into disrepute”.

They alleged that he was acting in the interests of “those close to him”, using his judicial powers “to render favours to those in his social circles or for others reasons known to him”.

Phatudi, in his response to the complaint, denied this.

But Jafta said he had been “silent on the evidently wrong process” that was followed.

“When regard is had to the numerous strange features in the matter which are not explained by the Judge President, it cannot be said that the allegation is fanciful.

“If the Judge President was persuaded by [Manyaku’s] argument, something he does not say in his response, he would have been shown to be grossly incompetent.

“It has never happened that the suspension of an order under appeal is taken to mean that the appellant can go back to court of first instance and relitigate the same dispute which is the subject of the appeal, while that appeal is pending. This is unprecedented and it is remarkable that it has happened here,” he said.

“Obstacles after another appear to have been placed in the path of the complainants to prevent reconsideration of [Phatudi’s] order.

“Phatudi saw nothing wrong in the matter despite the flashing red lights,” Jafta said.

“What these facts reveal is nothing but a judicial backsliding that was orchestrated by Mrs Manyaku Thulare. What is most concerning is that she was enabled by Phatudi and his colleagues, to undermine the administration of justice in the most serious way.

“If the enabling was deliberate, these judges may be guilty of gross misconduct. But if it was inadvertent, then they may well be guilty of gross incompetence,” Jafta said.

These issues could only be determined by a tribunal, he said.

Notably, the SCA had delivered its judgment on the appeal, remitting it back to the High Court for the hearing of oral evidence. Of significance was the fact that it had ordered that no Limpopo judge who had at any stage adjudicated on the issue, could hear the matter.

Jafta said the reason for the “unusual order” had not been explained but the SCA, but it would not have made such an order without good reason.

In November 2025, Phatudi was found guilty of misconduct for presiding in a case he was involved in while he was an attorney.

He was ordered to apologise to the complainant and submit himself to a reprimand from the Chief Justice.

© 2026 GroundUp. This article is published under the GroundUp Republication Licence Version 1.0. Email [email protected] to request permission to republish.